Or in Starmer's world...I was not told what day it was today, nor did I ask, therefore I am unable to tell you what today it is today. The person responsible for not telling me has been fired and we have launched an inquiry on how to reform the process by which the PM is told which day of the week it is.
There needs to be a full inquiry to establish the facts about the sequence of days with a view to implementing a process so that there can be no doubt that Friday follows Thursday.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Well said.
It was austerity in name only.
Performasterity.
What Osborne planned to do, and did, was rather simple
Reduce the UK Government spending deficit each year.
He may have lost the support of Lib Dem MPs but don't worry the activists will be out in support of the government toadying up to them on a daily basis. I mean look at the recent discussion about fake asylum seekers going home to visit being defended by them today and yesterday.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Well said.
It was austerity in name only.
I recall Ed M's fruitless efforts to simultaneously complain about cutting too far too fast, and also that the Tories did not cut as much as they'd said they would. Possible but difficult.
I've no idea what the deficit is now, no-one cares anymore, politically.
Well the biggest single political failure of the last 10 years is, in my view, the failure to prepare the nation for having to pay back the COVID bailouts, through temporary increases in taxes or otherwise. If the deal was always “we’ll do this but it will need paying for” then there would be less avenue to complain.
He hasn't been that angry since he had to re-re-re-re-explain why he took £100k's of freebies and that getting upgraded to luxury box at Arsenal was a disgrace.
It is baffling that Starmer accepted all those freebies. He is a wealthy man, who could have afforded them all himself, striving to be seen as the antidote to sleaze. It was just so stupid to allow it to taint his image, which up until then was that if a pious, if boring , good guy
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
It's actually a bit surprising that we haven't seen an Operation Spiderweb style attack on somewhere like the White House, or the Knesset.
The technology is only getting better and easier to use, and defending against it is hard.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Fair enough. I have some sympathy for that idea. The Thatcherite approach in 79-82 looked doomed but it did turn things around (along with North Sea oil and the Falklands). Would have been hard going politically.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Yes, this is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
He may have lost the support of Lib Dem MPs but don't worry the activists will be out in support of the government toadying up to them on a daily basis. I mean look at the recent discussion about fake asylum seekers going home to visit being defended by them today and yesterday.
Like most on the right you conflate parties having similar positions on certain issues with “defending the government”.
The Lib Dems are relatively liberal on immigration and asylum. More so than Labour. I know someone like you cannot imagine how anyone could hold such beliefs, but why would you expect a liberal party to express illiberal views simply because they’re in opposition to the government?
This is, to coin a Leon term, theory of mind stuff.
Would you describe Farage as “defending the Tories” when he expresses similar or more right wing views on asylum? And frankly there’s a stronger argument there given a large chunk of their MPs and councillors are resprayed Tories.
He hasn't been that angry since he had to re-re-re-re-explain why he took £100k's of freebies and that getting upgraded to luxury box at Arsenal was a disgrace.
It is baffling that Starmer accepted all those freebies. He is a wealthy man, who could have afforded them all himself, striving to be seen as the antidote to sleaze. It was just so stupid to allow it to taint his image, which up until then was that if a pious, if boring , good guy
Starmer is the quintessential meritocrat. He believes that he has become PM solely on the basis of his merits and therefore he deserves to be richly rewarded as a result.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Yes, this is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
Except it’s not, it’s a convenient but evidence free assertion.
It did damage, but more austerity would have done more damage. And no austerity might have been disastrous or it might have worked. It worked for the US, but they have a reserve currency and forgiving bondholders.
Some of that was about where the axe fell too, rather than how hard it fell.
He hasn't been that angry since he had to re-re-re-re-explain why he took £100k's of freebies and that getting upgraded to luxury box at Arsenal was a disgrace.
It is baffling that Starmer accepted all those freebies. He is a wealthy man, who could have afforded them all himself, striving to be seen as the antidote to sleaze. It was just so stupid to allow it to taint his image, which up until then was that if a pious, if boring , good guy
I bet he stuffs his luggage with all the tiny toiletries from all the hotels he stays in seemingly every week he goes away...
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
The problem is the obvious contenders for PM aren't currently in a position to move so things need to continue as they are.
While we complain about how the Tory party can remove a PM, at least the Tory Party have a mechanism that can do so...
Do the current rules allow stalking horses? Can the field widen if a challenger comes forwards?
That’s the key one for me. If for instance someone like Richard Burgeon got the nominations and challenged Starmer after May, does the party have the time for other challengers to emerge/seek nominations.
If so it’s much easier to see someone going for it: “I didn’t want to challenge the PM but regretfully my duty requires me to stand” etc etc.
The rules pretty much require a stalking horse. 81 Lab MPs (20%) need to nominate someone for the contest, as the first point in the process. Starmer, as incumbent, is automatically on the ballot if he wishes to be.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Yes, this is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
Except it’s not, it’s a convenient but evidence free assertion.
It did damage, but more austerity would have done more damage. And no austerity might have been disastrous or it might have worked. It worked for the US, but they have a reserve currency and forgiving bondholders.
Some of that was about where the axe fell too, rather than how hard it fell.
If borrowing billions and billions from our children is the only way we can avoid damage then we’ve taken a very serious wrong turn.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
The problem is the obvious contenders for PM aren't currently in a position to move so things need to continue as they are.
While we complain about how the Tory party can remove a PM, at least the Tory Party have a mechanism that can do so...
Do the current rules allow stalking horses? Can the field widen if a challenger comes forwards?
That’s the key one for me. If for instance someone like Richard Burgeon got the nominations and challenged Starmer after May, does the party have the time for other challengers to emerge/seek nominations.
If so it’s much easier to see someone going for it: “I didn’t want to challenge the PM but regretfully my duty requires me to stand” etc etc.
The rules pretty much require a stalking horse. 81 Lab MPs (20%) need to nominate someone for the contest, as the first point in the process. Starmer, as incumbent, is automatically on the ballot if he wishes to be.
So the question becomes how easily can the rules be changed, if the NEC wants to change them?
The rules for the election that Corbyn won were only introduced the year before and both the Tory and Labour parties have in recent years tweaked (not significantly overhauled) the rules immediately prior to a contest too, eg changing pre-determined thresholds rules.
The last 5 Tory leadership elections in a row have all had the rules changed immediately prior to the election itself (mainly regarding nomination and round thresholds).
If Starmer resigns and hundreds of Labour MPs declare "we need Burnham" for example, could the NEC abolish the rule of needing a candidate to be an MP in time for the election?
It doesn't matter. In order to be Prime Minister, Burnham would need to be an MP so the rest is moot.
The ghost of Sir Alex Douglas Home waves hello.
And across the Pond, last year our Canadian cousins had a Prime Minister under our system that was not an MP until after the next election, which he called. So he was PM for about 6 weeks without being an MP.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can help deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Waiting in vain for a party to stand for increasing investment and cutting expenditure on pensions and the NHS.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Starmer being angry at the process has similar vibes to Brown being angry about MPs expenses - when you’re the one who is largely in control of that system it’s not plausible to deny all understanding of it.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Waiting in vain for a party to stand for increasing investment and cutting expenditure on pensions and the NHS.
I thought you were waiting for the bombing to resume ?
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Well said.
It was austerity in name only.
I recall Ed M's fruitless efforts to simultaneously complain about cutting too far too fast, and also that the Tories did not cut as much as they'd said they would. Possible but difficult.
I've no idea what the deficit is now, no-one cares anymore, politically.
Well the biggest single political failure of the last 10 years is, in my view, the failure to prepare the nation for having to pay back the COVID bailouts, through temporary increases in taxes or otherwise. If the deal was always “we’ll do this but it will need paying for” then there would be less avenue to complain.
We should have done it at the time. The savings rate exploded (typically those sat in their gardens enjoying WFH), and those savings then propped up inflation in subsequent years as people started spending again.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Yes, this is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
Except it’s not, it’s a convenient but evidence free assertion.
It did damage, but more austerity would have done more damage. And no austerity might have been disastrous or it might have worked. It worked for the US, but they have a reserve currency and forgiving bondholders.
Some of that was about where the axe fell too, rather than how hard it fell.
If borrowing billions and billions from our children is the only way we can avoid damage then we’ve taken a very serious wrong turn.
That’s also a rather simplistic way of looking at it.
If borrowing enables investment in productive assets (or allows for lower tax which businesses can then invest in productive assets) then it will have a positive ROI. Especially when interest rates are near zero. But not all borrowing is equal.
The USA post financial crisis decided to go Keynesian and as a result outperformed the rest of the developed world. That, and their shale boom of course.
It’s why the simple austerity good / austerity bad arguments leave me cold.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Waiting in vain for a party to stand for increasing investment and cutting expenditure on pensions and the NHS.
I thought you were waiting for the bombing to resume ?
I think he considers bombing a form of investment.
"So Olly Robbins, a Civil Servant at the heart of government and head of the FO, a Civil Servant who probably has almost daily contact with Starmer, knew that Mandelson had failed his vetting but didn't think to mention this until this week? When the PM is answering questions about this week after week in Parliament? Are we supposed to believe this?"
Difficult to know what to believe, David.
Why would one of our top Civil Servants resign if he had merely been doing what the PM wanted? I'm not inclined to believe that such senior officials readily sacrifice their careers for their political masters.
So far all we can say with certainty is that it appears it was Robbins that lied, not the PM. The question as to why he lied is important, and fascinating.
more like he is taking the bullet for him and will be well looked after , will pop up in a plum roll somewhere soon.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
Because his mortage application job application was sponsored by Geoffrey Robinson Keir Starmer so the credit check security vetting could be safely ignored.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
Sounds like the safeguarding trap when everything's too confidential to let people know where/what the risks are.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Well said.
It was austerity in name only.
I recall Ed M's fruitless efforts to simultaneously complain about cutting too far too fast, and also that the Tories did not cut as much as they'd said they would. Possible but difficult.
I've no idea what the deficit is now, no-one cares anymore, politically.
Well the biggest single political failure of the last 10 years is, in my view, the failure to prepare the nation for having to pay back the COVID bailouts, through temporary increases in taxes or otherwise. If the deal was always “we’ll do this but it will need paying for” then there would be less avenue to complain.
We should have done it at the time. The savings rate exploded (typically those sat in their gardens enjoying WFH), and those savings then propped up inflation in subsequent years as people started spending again.
That’s fine but what about those of us who has to work and didn’t get furloughed ?
Also, as I cycle to work, or did, I saved nothing by WFH.
Our savings went up purely because we weren’t dining out twice a week.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Because growing the tax base also eliminates the deficit.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Waiting in vain for a party to stand for increasing investment and cutting expenditure on pensions and the NHS.
I thought you were waiting for the bombing to resume ?
I think he considers bombing a form of investment.
In Osborne's defence, I think it's rare that infrastructure investment does lead to the expected growth.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
I’m getting even more confused now !
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
Nice get out for the politicians , always a useful idiot around to blame when it goes pear shaped.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
EDIT: oh, the claim is it was Robbins’s call to make.
That adds even more confusion .
So looking at the full post Robbins didn’t overturn the security clearance he just made a decision to say he was approved.
Under the old system I think it was his call to make. His mistake was not informing Starmer, particularly after it blew up and became political. Perhaps Starmer should have explicitly asked. I don't think Starmer even knew that the FO had the right to make the call and overturn the DV verdict.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
Nod Nod, wink wink, nothing to see here move along
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
Nod Nod, wink wink, nothing to see here move along
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
Remember the Rory Stewart saga? The one where officials lied to him, repeatedly, and obstructed his attempts to stop funding to an organisation that turned out to be er... terrorist influenced?
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
I’m getting even more confused now !
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
Mandelson had already been appointed at this point, a decision to unappoint seems calamatously unfair on a civil servant (Even the top dog) to make to effectively overrule his political masters.
On this point, the system needs tearing up and starting again. Olly's job should be to report the various vetting facts to the PM not have to decide whether to unmake a very high profile and political decision.
Edit: Particularly considering the timeline in this one.
I'd be looking for the big bucks if I was Robbins on this one, he's been thoroughly stitched up.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
I’m getting even more confused now !
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
Olly Robbins started his job at the FCDO on 8th Jan 2025, after Mandelson had been appointed Ambassador, and after he was given security clearance
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
The Yes Minister sketch writes itself
Question : Were you aware of the failure in vetting Sir Humphrey: I was unaware Question: Were you aware of the process by which a failure in vetting could be over turned? Sir Humphrey: I was unaware Question: Were you are aware of anything Sir Humphrey: I was unaware of the process by which I could become aware of this. Nor have I become aware of a process by which I could become aware of the process by which I could become aware of this. Nor have I become aware of the process by which I could become aware of a process by which I could become aware of the process by which I could become aware of this.
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
I’m getting even more confused now !
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
Olly Robbins started his job at the FCDO on 8th Jan 2025, after Mandelson had been appointed Ambassador, and after he was given security clearance
Mandelson was appointed on 20th December 2024. But the official clearance from the FCDO didn’t come till after Robbins was put in post .
If Robbins had nothing to do with the matter he wouldn’t have got sacked . It would have been Sir Phillip Barton carrying the can .
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
Isn't the most likely explanation that Starmer appointed Mandelson and Robbins nodded him through because why wouldn't he? It wouldn't have been a surprise that the vetting through something up but presumably Starmer would be fine with that because he wanted Mandelson in post.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
Isn't the most likely explanation that Starmer appointed Mandelson and Robbins nodded him through because why wouldn't he? It wouldn't have been a surprise that the vetting through something up but presumably Starmer would be fine with that because he wanted Mandelson in post.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
And have stopped it as of last night / this morning according to Jones.
I can see that the UKSV report is confidential, I'm struggling with the "UKSV recommendation is confidential". Why would the FCDO civil servants take that responsibility on themselves.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
I find that utterly extraordinary.
As I posted earlier, this is the Darren Jones statement: "Look I find this whole situation astonishing, I found this out yesterday afternoon… the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendations of security and vetting officials when appointing people to sensitive roles. I immediately suspended the right last night for the Foreign Office and other organisations to be able to use that exemption..."
It's pretty clear that most politicians were also unaware of this , which is why they're all saying it is "not credible/ unbelievable/ quite extraordinary" etc.
I suspect the system has been in place for a very long time for operational security reasons - remember the FCO is intimately connected to MI6, and that vetting is carried out confidentially by the security services.
It would have been designed to hide the appointment of intelligence assets, rather than rubber stamp a prime ministerial appointment of a serious wrongun, of course. (Though at times they were both things..)
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
You lost me at making Boris look morally superior ! Can you point out the signs of personal remorse ?
I think Starmer will have to go eventually but I’m not buying this beatification of Bozo .
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
I have no idea why the public generally have lawyers up their with estate agents in their dislike..
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
That hangdog look as he continued to furiously hump your leg...
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
I’m getting even more confused now !
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
Olly Robbins started his job at the FCDO on 8th Jan 2025, after Mandelson had been appointed Ambassador, and after he was given security clearance
Mandelson was appointed on 20th December 2024. But the official clearance from the FCDO didn’t come till after Robbins was put in post .
If Robbins had nothing to do with the matter he wouldn’t have got sacked . It would have been Sir Phillip Barton carrying the can .
The only logical conclusion I can glean from this is that Sir Phil refused, so he was replaced by Olly who had been ordered to give Mandy clearance
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
Starmer is now in the position of having his story about not knowing corroborated . Robbins legally couldn’t pass on details about any issue from the UKVS .
But on the other hand No 10 shouldn’t have gone round saying all this about being outraged at not being told re the UKVS issue .
The line should have been Starmer was only told pass/fail. The FCDO weren’t allowed to give other details but surely this is part of the problem .
Starmer is now in the position of having his story about not knowing corroborated . Robbins legally couldn’t pass on details about any issue from the UKVS .
But on the other hand No 10 shouldn’t have gone round saying all this about being outraged at not being told re the UKVS issue .
The line should have been Starmer was only told pass/fail. The FCDO weren’t allowed to give other details but surely this is part of the problem .
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is why I come to PB. Where else can we receive these kinds of insights into the inner thoughts of the prime minister's spouse?
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is why I come to PB. Where else can we receive these kinds of insights into the inner thoughts of the prime minister's spouse?
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
This is why I come to PB. Where else can we receive these kinds of insights into the inner thoughts of the prime minister's spouse?
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
That hangdog look as he continued to furiously hump your leg...
Boris? personal remorse? f*** off
Boris shameful in every aspect of his life, yes, but genuinely ashamed, never.
In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire, on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Rep. of Iran.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
I find that utterly extraordinary.
As I posted earlier, this is the Darren Jones statement: "Look I find this whole situation astonishing, I found this out yesterday afternoon… the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendations of security and vetting officials when appointing people to sensitive roles. I immediately suspended the right last night for the Foreign Office and other organisations to be able to use that exemption..."
It's pretty clear that most politicians were also unaware of this , which is why they're all saying it is "not credible/ unbelievable/ quite extraordinary" etc.
I suspect the system has been in place for a very long time for operational security reasons - remember the FCO is intimately connected to MI6, and that vetting is carried out confidentially by the security services.
It would have been designed to hide the appointment of intelligence assets, rather than rubber stamp a prime ministerial appointment of a serious wrongun, of course. (Though at times they were both things..)
Much of that is a guess, but the FCO power of discretion over vetting seems to be a fact. We'll find out more in due course.
But it implies civil service rules set up during the Cold War, which have not since been revisited, and which all political parties seem to have been ignorant of.
The civil service has been reformed over the years in a piecemeal basis, but how many of us really understand how it works ? Calling it "the Blob" is more a profession of ignorance than a useful critique.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
I find that utterly extraordinary.
Indeed. I presume someone told the FCDO they should recommend Mandy even if he failed the security vetting. Or, the failure was passed on informally, and equally informally they were told that Starmer would not budge and Mandy should be cleared.
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
IIRC Alice Roberts declared it the finest Victorian City in the UK
In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire, on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Rep. of Iran.
Even if this works, we are looking at 6+ week gap in deliveries now, round the world.
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
IIRC Alice Roberts declared it the finest Victorian City in the UK
Not being given the Herman Goering Redevelopment Corporation treatment and not being improved in the 1960s, mainly.
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
It's actually a bit surprising that we haven't seen an Operation Spiderweb style attack on somewhere like the White House, or the Knesset.
The technology is only getting better and easier to use, and defending against it is hard.
Formations of drones have been seen flying over B-52 bases.
Starmer has reached the point where his lying is grotesque, and an open insult to the British public. I doubt a single person in the country now respects him. And that very much includes his wife
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
That hangdog look as he continued to furiously hump your leg...
Boris? personal remorse? f*** off
Boris was shameful in every aspect of his life, yes, genuinely ashamed, never.
Not true. When Boris was upbraided in the House of Commons for one of his many misdeeds he blushed and looked remorseful. I remember it distinctly because it surprised me: that this apparently amoral, careless and extremely ambitious man also showed evidence of a conscience
There is also the possibility that he was acting and felt no shame, in truth. But even then he’s better than Skyr, who can’t even be bothered to act guilty
I suspect this is because Starmer feels no guilt about anything. He is devoid of a moral compass because he threw his away. He thinks whatever he does is good and right and is incapable of examining his own actions and finding fault
I mean this seriously. Recall this is a man who by his own account never dreams. Who cannot name a favourite poem or novel. He has never wondered if he is extrovert or introvert. Starmer has no inner life, no interiority, at all. That means he has no conscience because that part of his brain is missing
He’s a just a balloon of red faced self regard, otherwise full of air
Sam Coates on Sky says allies of Robbins are saying the sacking was unjust. If Labour loses the civil service vote, who have they got left?
Benefits claimants, they've lost the Islamic vote to the Greens and independents and somehow the progressive vote is draining away to the Greens as well.
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Reform have the benefit claimants. Just look at the housing tenure/geography/income polling breakdowns.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
Yes, I was out leafleting in one of the more run-down estates in a target ward yesterday. Lots of dilapidated housing, young men with aggressive dogs, half-dismantled cars on the front lawns and tattered England flags draped from upstairs windows and flying from many of the lamp posts. It's WWC but is an unemployment hot spot around here with a very Reformy feel to it.
Harborne has changed since I left Brum.
You should try the A34 Stratford Road
Which bit ? The bit in Shirley is fine. It’s many years since I drove or cycled it up sparkhill way into town
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
I find that utterly extraordinary.
Indeed. I presume someone told the FCDO they should recommend Mandy even if he failed the security vetting. Or, the failure was passed on informally, and equally informally they were told that Starmer would not budge and Mandy should be cleared.
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
The city hall exhibition is worth at least a quick wander round. If only for the architecture...
Unexpectedly, I really like Belfast. It’s gritty and broken but also handsome and impressive. The history is sad yet it adds to the noom, which is quite high. My noom counter is clicking away so there must be deposits all over
Also St George’s market is fab
IIRC Alice Roberts declared it the finest Victorian City in the UK
It’s cracking. And the people are great (this is true across Northern Ireland): funny, kind, friendly
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If Mandelson failed vetting. why was he passed by the FCDO?
That’s the million dollar question.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
That more or less seems to be the case. They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
I find that utterly extraordinary.
Indeed. I presume someone told the FCDO they should recommend Mandy even if he failed the security vetting. Or, the failure was passed on informally, and equally informally they were told that Starmer would not budge and Mandy should be cleared.
There's more to this than we've been told.
Was there back-and-forth between Starmer and others, or not? That's the key question.
Comments
Reduce the UK Government spending deficit each year.
😂😂
https://x.com/neildotobrien/status/2045085044276924913?s=61
The Lib Dems are relatively liberal on immigration and asylum. More so than Labour. I know someone like you cannot imagine how anyone could hold such beliefs, but why would you expect a liberal party to express illiberal views simply because they’re in opposition to the government?
This is, to coin a Leon term, theory of mind stuff.
Would you describe Farage as “defending the Tories” when he expresses similar or more right wing views on asylum? And frankly there’s a stronger argument there given a large chunk of their MPs and councillors are resprayed Tories.
EDIT: oh, the claim is it was Robbins’s call to make.
It did damage, but more austerity would have done more damage. And no austerity might have been disastrous or it might have worked. It worked for the US, but they have a reserve currency and forgiving bondholders.
Some of that was about where the axe fell too, rather than how hard it fell.
Coldplay are going to be doing a halftime show at the World Cup final. I know how much Eagles and Robert enjoy their work.
/TSE
Labour will be left with benefit claimants. I'm sure it won't be long until the Greens start to target them as well.
The Tories went through this with Reform and I think only now has the tide turned a bit. Labour are in for a few tough years until the internal contradictions of Green party politics fall apart as we're seeing with Reform.
Keir Starmer on the telly this morning
https://x.com/tomwhx/status/2045093380783313267?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
And across the Pond, last year our Canadian cousins had a Prime Minister under our system that was not an MP until after the next election, which he called. So he was PM for about 6 weeks without being an MP.
The criticism of Osborne is he cut a lot of stuff than can help deliver growth, like infrastructure spending, while increasing spending on stuff that doesn’t, like pensions and the NHS. And even within the NHS, he massively cut public health and capital spending.
Looked great at the time but look at us now.
So looking at the full post Robbins didn’t overturn the security clearance he just made a decision to say he was approved.
The areas affected by the two-child limit was effectively a list of their target seats.
The only two decent things Coldplay have done is Yellow and the kisscam thing, and the latter is a million times better than the former.
This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to
The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation.
But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision
Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation
Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else
If borrowing enables investment in productive assets (or allows for lower tax which businesses can then invest in productive assets) then it will have a positive ROI. Especially when interest rates are near zero. But not all borrowing is equal.
The USA post financial crisis decided to go Keynesian and as a result outperformed the rest of the developed world. That, and their shale boom of course.
It’s why the simple austerity good / austerity bad arguments leave me cold.
Someone, somewhere must have made it clear he should be passed if that vetting failed, surely? Or are we really saying that FCDO officials have the power to use their own judgement to override national security concerns when appointing ambassadors? If so that is insane
Also, as I cycle to work, or did, I saved nothing by WFH.
Our savings went up purely because we weren’t dining out twice a week.
So Robbins couldn’t pass on the issue with UKSV as he wasn’t allowed to.
He can only report on the pass/ fail . This means he looked at all the reports and decided himself to issue the pass.
So in one way this means unless he personally told the PM then he couldn’t have known but equally surely No 10 should know the procedure and Starmers story should be that the only thing he’s told is pass/ fail and he’d not know about the UKSV issue .
His mistake was not informing Starmer, particularly after it blew up and became political.
Perhaps Starmer should have explicitly asked.
I don't think Starmer even knew that the FO had the right to make the call and overturn the DV verdict.
On this point, the system needs tearing up and starting again. Olly's job should be to report the various vetting facts to the PM not have to decide whether to unmake a very high profile and political decision.
Edit: Particularly considering the timeline in this one.
I'd be looking for the big bucks if I was Robbins on this one, he's been thoroughly stitched up.
They do have power to override a negative security vetting off their own bat.
Labour ministers were - reportedly at least - unaware of that.
Question : Were you aware of the failure in vetting
Sir Humphrey: I was unaware
Question: Were you aware of the process by which a failure in vetting could be over turned?
Sir Humphrey: I was unaware
Question: Were you are aware of anything
Sir Humphrey: I was unaware of the process by which I could become aware of this. Nor have I become aware of a process by which I could become aware of the process by which I could become aware of this. Nor have I become aware of the process by which I could become aware of a process by which I could become aware of the process by which I could become aware of this.
He manages to make Boris look morally superior. Because ah least Boris managed to look genuinely shameful at times, and definitely showed signs of personal remorse
Starmer doesn’t even do that. Never shows regret or guilt. He lies without shame, and always blames others. He’s morally repulsive
If Robbins had nothing to do with the matter he wouldn’t have got sacked . It would have been Sir Phillip Barton carrying the can .
I can see that the UKSV report is confidential, I'm struggling with the "UKSV recommendation is confidential". Why would the FCDO civil servants take that responsibility on themselves.
"Look I find this whole situation astonishing, I found this out yesterday afternoon… the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendations of security and vetting officials when appointing people to sensitive roles.
I immediately suspended the right last night for the Foreign Office and other organisations to be able to use that exemption..."
It's pretty clear that most politicians were also unaware of this , which is why they're all saying it is "not credible/ unbelievable/ quite extraordinary" etc.
I suspect the system has been in place for a very long time for operational security reasons - remember the FCO is intimately connected to MI6, and that vetting is carried out confidentially by the security services.
It would have been designed to hide the appointment of intelligence assets, rather than rubber stamp a prime ministerial appointment of a serious wrongun, of course.
(Though at times they were both things..)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9qprx2ljlo
The US and Iran are in talks over a possible deal in which Washington would release about $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its enriched uranium stockpile, Axios reports.
I think Starmer will have to go eventually but I’m not buying this beatification of Bozo .
Boris? personal remorse? f*** off
Back then they aged in dog years
https://x.com/lbc/status/2045089889419469185
‘I feel profoundly let down.’
Is Starmer's government mimicking the Tories and their '14 years of corruption and dishonesty'?
James O’Brien says he was ‘perhaps naive’ to think it would be any different.
But on the other hand No 10 shouldn’t have gone round saying all this about being outraged at not being told re the UKVS issue .
The line should have been Starmer was only told pass/fail. The FCDO weren’t allowed to give other details but surely this is part of the problem .
A PM should be able to request further info .
Iran’s foreign minister has said the Strait of Hormuz is “completely open” to commercial shipping for the duration of the ceasefire in Lebanon.
https://www.ft.com/content/cdb6aaee-3cec-4456-8106-5c9279d02392?shareType=nongift
Also St George’s market is fab
In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire, on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Rep. of Iran.
But it implies civil service rules set up during the Cold War, which have not since been revisited, and which all political parties seem to have been ignorant of.
The civil service has been reformed over the years in a piecemeal basis, but how many of us really understand how it works ?
Calling it "the Blob" is more a profession of ignorance than a useful critique.
Which will be Not Nice.
There is also the possibility that he was acting and felt no shame, in truth. But even then he’s better than Skyr, who can’t even be bothered to act guilty
I suspect this is because Starmer feels no guilt about anything. He is devoid of a moral compass because he threw his away. He thinks whatever he does is good and right and is incapable of examining his own actions and finding fault
I mean this seriously. Recall this is a man who by his own account never dreams. Who cannot name a favourite poem or novel. He has never wondered if he is extrovert or introvert. Starmer has no inner life, no interiority, at all. That means he has no conscience because that part of his brain is missing
He’s a just a balloon of red faced self regard, otherwise full of air